Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 1 of 2)

XXI. When they find themselves convinced, by evident experience, that they promiscuously loose and bind the worthy and the unworthy, they arrogate to themselves the power without knowledge. And though they dare not deny that knowledge is requisite to a good use of it, yet they tell us, that the power itself is committed to improper dispensers of it. But this is the power – “Whatsoever thou bindest or loosest on earth, shall be bound or loosed in heaven.” Either the promise of Christ must be false, or the binding and loosing is rightly performed by those who are endued with this power. Nor is there any room for them to quibble, that the declaration of Christ is limited according to the merits of the person that is bound or loosed. We also acknowledge, that none can be bound or loosed, but such as are worthy to be bound or loosed. But the preachers of the gospel, and the Church, have the word as the standard of this worthiness. In this word, the ministers of the gospel may promise to all remission of sins in Christ through faith; they may denounce damnation against all and upon all who receive not Christ. In this word, the Church pronounces, that fornicators, adulterers, thieves, murderers, misers, and extortioners, have no part in the kingdom of God; and binds such with the firmest bonds. In the same word, the Church looses and comforts those who repent.1730 But what kind of power will it be, not to know what ought to be bound or loosed? and not to be able to bind or loose without this knowledge? Why, then, do they say, that they absolve by the authority committed to them, when their absolution is uncertain? Why should we concern ourselves about this imaginary power, if it be quite useless? But I have already ascertained, either that it has no existence, or that it is too uncertain to be considered of any value. For, as they confess that there are many of the priests who make no right use of the keys, and that the power has no efficacy without a legitimate use of it, who will assure me, that he by whom I am loosed is a good dispenser of the keys? But if he be a bad one, what else does he possess but this frivolous dispensation of them: “What ought to be bound or loosed in you, I know not, since I am destitute of the proper use of the keys; but if you deserve it, I absolve you?” But as much as this might be done, I will not say by a layman, (since they could not hear that with any patience,) but by a Turk or a devil. For it is equivalent to saying, “I have not the word of God, which is the certain rule of loosing; but I am invested with authority to absolve you, on condition that your merits deserve it.” We see, then, what they intended, when they defined the keys to be an authority of discerning, and a power of executing, attended with knowledge as a counsellor, to promote the good use. The truth is, that they wished to reign according to their own licentious inclinations, independently of God and his word.

XXII. If it be objected, that the legitimate ministers of Christ will be equally perplexed in their office, since the absolution, which depends on faith, will ever be doubtful, and that therefore sinners will have but a slight consolation, or none at all, since the minister himself, who is not a competent judge of their faith, is not certain of their absolution, – we are prepared with an answer. They say, that no sins are remitted by the priest, but those which fall under his cognizance; thus, according to them, remission depends on the judgment of the priest; and unless he sagaciously discerns who are worthy of pardon, the whole transaction is frivolous and useless. In short, the power of which they speak is a jurisdiction annexed to examination, to which pardon and absolution are restricted. In this statement, we find no firm footing, but rather a bottomless abyss; for where the confession is deficient, the hope of pardon is also imperfect; in the next place, the priest himself must necessarily remain in suspense, while he is ignorant whether the sinner faithfully enumerates all his crimes; lastly, such is the ignorance and inexperience of priests, that the majority of them are no more qualified for the exercise of this office, than a shoemaker for cultivating the ground; and almost all the rest ought justly to be suspicious of themselves. Hence, then, the perplexity and doubtfulness of the Papal absolution, because they maintain it to be founded on the person of the priest; and not only so, but on his knowledge, so that he can only judge of what he hears, examines, and ascertains. Now, should any one inquire of these good doctors, whether a sinner be reconciled to God on the remission of part of his sins, I know not what answer they can give, without being constrained to acknowledge the inefficacy of whatever the priest may pronounce concerning the remission of sins which he has heard enumerated, as long as the guilt of others still remains. What a pernicious anxiety must oppress the conscience of the person that confesses, appears from this consideration, that while he relies on the discretion of the priest, (as they express themselves,) he decides nothing by the word of God. The doctrine maintained by us, is perfectly free from all these absurdities. For absolution is conditional, in such a way, that the sinner may be confident that God is propitious to him, provided he sincerely seeks an atonement in the sacrifice of Christ, and relies upon the grace offered to him. Thus it is impossible for him to err, who, according to his duty as a preacher, promulgates what he has been taught by the Divine word; and the sinner may receive a certain and clear absolution, simply on condition of embracing the grace of Christ, according to that general rule of our Lord himself, which has been impiously despised among the Papists – “According to your faith be it unto you.”1731

XXIII. Their absurd confusion of the clear representations of the Scripture concerning the power of the keys, I have promised to expose in another place; and a more suitable opportunity will present itself, in discussing the government of the Church. But let the reader remember, that they preposterously pervert to auricular and secret confession, passages which are spoken by Christ, partly of the preaching of the gospel, and partly of excommunication. Wherefore, when they object that the power of loosing was committed to the apostles, which is now exercised by the priests in remitting the sins confessed to them, it is evidently an assumption of a false and frivolous principle; for the absolution consequent on faith, is nothing but a declaration of pardon taken from the gracious promise of the gospel; but the other absolution, which depends on ecclesiastical discipline, relates not to secret sins, but is rather for the sake of example, that the public offence of the Church may be removed. They rake together testimonies from every quarter, to prove, that it is not sufficient to make a confession of sins to God, or to laymen, unless they are likewise submitted to the cognizance of a priest; but they ought to be ashamed of such a disgusting employment. For, if the ancient fathers sometimes persuade sinners to disburden themselves to their own pastor, it cannot be understood of a particular enumeration of sins, which was not then practised. Moreover, Lombard and others of the same class have been so unfair, that they appear to have designedly consulted spurious books, in order to use them as a pretext to deceive the unwary. They do, indeed, properly acknowledge, that since loosing always accompanies repentance, there really remains no bond where any one has experienced repentance, although he may not yet have made a confession; and, therefore, that then the priest does not so much remit sins, as pronounce and declare them to be remitted. Though in the word declare they insinuate a gross error, substituting a ceremony in the place of instruction; but by adding, that he who had already obtained pardon before God, is absolved in the view of the Church, they unseasonably apply to the particular use of every individual, what we have already asserted to have been appointed as a part of the common discipline of the Church, when the offence of some great and notorious crime requires to be removed. But they presently corrupt and destroy all the moderation they had observed, by adding another mode of remission, that is, with an injunction of punishment and satisfaction; by which they arrogantly ascribe to their priests the power of dividing into two parts what God has every where promised as complete. For, as he simply requires repentance and faith, this partition or exception is an evident sacrilege. For it is just as if the priest, sustaining the character of a tribune, should interpose his veto, and not suffer God of his mere goodness to receive any one into favour, unless he had lain prostrate before the tribunitial seat, and there been punished.

XXIV. The whole argument comes to this – that if they will represent God as the author of this fictitious confession, it is a full proof of their error; for I have pointed out their fallacies in the few passages which they quote. But since it is evident that this is a law of human imposition, I assert that it is also tyrannical and injurious to God, who binds the consciences of men by his word, and whose will it is that they should be free from the authority of men. Now, when they prescribe as a necessary prerequisite to pardon that which God has chosen should be free, I maintain that it is an intolerable sacrilege; for nothing is more peculiarly the prerogative of God than the remission of sins, in which our salvation consists. I have moreover proved, that this tyranny was not introduced till the world was oppressed with the rudest barbarism. I have likewise shown that it is a pestilent law, because, if wretched souls are affected with the fear of God, it precipitates them into despair; or if they are in a state of careless security, it soothes them with vain flatteries, and renders them still more insensible. Lastly, I have stated, that all the mitigations which they add, have no other tendency than to perplex, obscure, and corrupt the pure doctrine, and to conceal their impieties under false and illusive colours.

XXV. The third place in repentance they assign to satisfaction; all their jargon concerning which may be overturned in one word. They say, that it is not sufficient for a penitent to abstain from his former sins, and to change his morals for the better, unless he make satisfaction to God for the crimes which he has committed; and that there are many helps by which we may redeem sins, such as tears, fastings, oblations, and works of charity; that by these the Lord is to be propitiated, by these our debts are to be paid to the Divine justice, by these we must compensate for the guilt of our sins, by these we must merit pardon; for that though, in the plenitude of his mercy, he has remitted our sins, yet, in the discipline of justice, he retains the punishment, and that this is the punishment which must be redeemed by satisfactions. All that they say, however, comes to this conclusion – that we obtain the pardon of our transgressions from the mercy of God, but that it is by the intervention of the merit of works, by which the evil of our sins must be compensated, that the Divine justice may receive the satisfaction which is due to it. To such falsehoods I oppose the gratuitous remission of sins, than which there is nothing more clearly revealed in the Scripture. In the first place, what is remission, but a gift of mere liberality? For the creditor is not said to forgive, who testifies by a receipt that the debt has been paid, but he who, without any payment, merely through his beneficence, voluntarily cancels the obligation. In the next place, why is this said to be free, but to preclude every idea of satisfaction? With what confidence, then, can they still set up their satisfactions, which are overthrown by such a mighty thunderbolt? But when the Lord proclaims by Isaiah, “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,”1732 does he not evidently declare, that he derives the cause and foundation of forgiveness merely from his own goodness? Besides, while the whole Scripture bears testimony to Christ, that “remission of sins” is to be “received through his name,”1733 does it not exclude all other names? How, then, do they teach, that it is received through the name of satisfactions? Nor can they deny that they ascribe this to satisfactions, although they call their intervention subsidiary. For when the Scripture states it to be “through the name of Christ,” it signifies, that we bring nothing, that we plead nothing, of our own, but rely solely on the mediation of Christ; as Paul, after affirming, “that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them,” immediately adds the method and nature of it, “for he hath made him, who knew no sin, to be sin for us.”1734

XXVI. But such is their perverseness, they reply that both remission of sins and reconciliation are obtained at once, when in baptism we are received into the favour of God, through Christ; that if we fall after baptism, we are to be raised up again by satisfactions; and that the blood of Christ avails us nothing, any further than it is dispensed by the keys of the Church. I am not speaking of a doubtful point, for they have betrayed their impurity in the most explicit terms; and this is the case not only of two or three, but of all the schoolmen. For their master, Lombard, after having confessed that, according to the doctrine of Peter, Christ suffered the punishment of sins on the cross,1735 immediately corrects that sentiment by the addition of the following exception: that all the temporal punishments of sins are remitted in baptism; but that after baptism they are diminished by means of repentance, so that our repentance coöperates with the cross of Christ. But John speaks a very different language: “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins: I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.”1736 He certainly addresses believers, and when he exhibits Christ to them as the propitiation for sins, proves that there is no other satisfaction by which our offended God may be propitiated or appeased. He says not, God was once reconciled to you by Christ, now seek some other means; but represents him as a perpetual advocate, who by his intercession restores us to the Father's favour for ever, and as a perpetual propitiation by which our sins are expiated. For this is perpetually true, that was declared by the other John, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world.”1737 He takes them away himself, I say, and no other; that is, since he alone is the Lamb of God, he alone is the oblation, the expiation, the satisfaction for sins. For the right and power to forgive being the peculiar prerogative of the Father, as distinguished from the Son, as we have already seen, Christ is here represented in another capacity, since by transferring to himself the punishment we deserved, he has obliterated our guilt before the throne of God. Whence it follows, that we shall not be partakers of the atonement of Christ in any other way, unless he remain in the exclusive possession of that honour, which they unjustly assume to themselves who endeavour to appease God by satisfactions of their own.

XXVII. And here two things demand our consideration – that the honour, which belongs to Christ, should be preserved to him entire and undiminished; and that consciences assured of the pardon of their sins, should have peace with God. Isaiah says, “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and “With his stripes we are healed.”1738 Peter, repeating the same truth in different words, says, that Christ “bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”1739 Paul informs us, that “sin was condemned in the flesh,”1740 when “Christ was made sin for us;”1741 that is, that the power and curse of sin were destroyed in his flesh, when he was given as a victim, to sustain the whole load of our sins, with their curse and execrations, with the dreadful judgment of God, and the condemnation of death. We cannot here listen to those foolish fictions; that after the initial purgation or baptism, none of us can have any further experience of the efficacy of the sufferings of Christ, than in proportion to a satisfactory repentance. But whenever we have fallen, the Scripture recalls us to the satisfaction of Christ alone. Now, review their pestilent follies; “that the grace of God operates alone in the first remission of sins; but that if we afterwards fall, our works coöperate with it in the impetration of a second pardon.” If these things be admitted, does Christ remain exclusively possessed of what we have before attributed to him? How immensely wide is the difference between these positions – that our iniquities are laid on Christ to be expiated by him, and that they are expiated by our own works! that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and that God must be propitiated by works! But with respect to pacifying the conscience, what peace will it afford any one, to hear that sins are redeemed by satisfactions? When will he be assured of the accomplishment of satisfaction? Therefore he will always doubt whether God be propitious to him, he will always be in a state of fluctuation and terror. For those who content themselves with trivial satisfactions, have too contemptuous sentiments of the judgment of God, and reflect very little on the vast evil of sin, as we shall elsewhere observe. But though we should allow them to expiate some sins by a proper satisfaction, yet what will they do when they are overwhelmed with so many sins, that to make adequate satisfactions for them, even a hundred lives entirely devoted to it could not possibly be sufficient? Besides, all the passages in which remission of sins is declared, are not addressed to catechumens, [or persons not yet baptized,] but to the regenerated sons of God, and those who have been long nurtured in the bosom of the Church. That embassy which Paul so splendidly extols, “We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God,”1742 is directed not to strangers, but to those who had already been regenerated. But, dismissing all satisfactions, he sends them to the cross of Christ. Thus, when he writes to the Colossians, that “Christ had made peace by the blood of his cross, and reconciled all things both in earth and in heaven,”1743 he restricts not this to the moment of our reception into the Church, but extends it through our whole course; as is evident from the context, where he says that believers “have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” But it is unnecessary to accumulate more passages, which are frequently occurring.

XXVIII. Here they take refuge in a foolish distinction, that some sins are venial, and some mortal; that a great satisfaction is due for mortal sins; but that those which are venial are purged away by easier remedies, by the Lord's prayer, the aspersion of holy water, and the absolution of the mass. Thus they sport and trifle with God. But though they are incessantly talking of venial and mortal sins, yet they have never been able to discriminate one from the other, except by making impiety and impurity of heart a venial sin. But we maintain, according to the doctrine of the Scripture, the only standard of righteousness and sin, that “the wages of sin is death,” and “the soul that sinneth, it shall die;”1744 but that the sins of believers are venial, not because they are not deserving of death, but because, through the mercy of God, “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”1745 because they are not imputed to them, but obliterated by a pardon. I know their unjust calumnies against this doctrine of ours; they assert it to be the Stoical paradox concerning the equality of sins; but they will easily be refuted out of their own lips. For I ask, whether among those very sins which they confess to be mortal, they do not acknowledge one to be greater or less than another? It does not, therefore, immediately follow, that sins are equal because they are alike mortal. Since the Scripture declares that the wages of sin is death, that obedience to the law is the way of life, and the transgression of it death, they cannot evade this decision. What end, then, will they find to satisfactions in so great an accumulation of sins? If it be the business of one day to satisfy for one sin, while they are employed in that, they involve themselves in more; for the most righteous man cannot pass a single day without falling several times. While they shall be preparing themselves to make satisfaction for these, they will accumulate a numerous, or rather an innumerable multitude. Now, all confidence in satisfaction is cut off: on what do they depend? How do they still presume to think of making satisfaction?

XXIX. They endeavour to extricate themselves from this difficulty, but without success. They invent a distinction between the guilt and the punishment; and acknowledge that the guilt is forgiven by the Divine mercy, but maintain, that after the remission of the guilt, there still remains the punishment, which the Divine justice requires to be suffered; and, therefore, that satisfactions properly relate to the remission of the punishment. What desultory levity is this! Now, they confess that remission of guilt is proposed as gratuitous, which they are continually teaching men to merit by prayers and tears, and other preparations of various kinds. But every thing delivered in the Scripture concerning remission of sins is diametrically opposite to this distinction. And though I think I have fully established this point already, I will subjoin some additional testimonies, by which our opponents will be so much embarrassed, as, notwithstanding all their serpentine lubricity, to be totally unable ever to extricate themselves. “This is the new covenant,” which God has made with us in Christ, “that he will not remember our iniquities.”1746 The import of these expressions we learn from another prophet, by whom the Lord says, “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, all his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned. When the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, he shall surely live, he shall not die.”1747 “Not to mention righteousness,” signifies, not to notice it so as to reward it; and “not to remember sins,” is, not to inflict punishment for them. This is expressed in other passages by the following phrases: to “cast behind the back,” to “blot out as a cloud,” to “cast into the depths of the sea,” “not to impute,” to “cover.”1748 These forms of expression would clearly convey to us the sense of the Holy Spirit, if we attended to them with docility. If God punishes sins, he certainly imputes them; if he avenges them, he remembers them; if he cites them to judgment, he does not cover them; if he examines them, he has not cast them behind his back; if he inspects them, he has not blotted them out as a cloud; if he scrutinizes them, he has not cast them into the depths of the sea. And in this manner the subject is clearly explained by Augustine. “If God has covered sins, he would not look at them; if he would not look at them, he would not take cognizance of them; if he would not take cognizance of them, he would not punish them; he would not know them, he would rather forgive them. Why, then, has he said that sins are covered? That they might not be seen. For what is meant by God's seeing sin, but his punishing it?” Let us also hear from another passage of the prophet, on what conditions God remits sins. “Though your sins be as scarlet, (says he,) they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.”1749 And in Jeremiah we find this declaration: “In that time the iniquities of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none; and the sins of Judah, and they shall not be found; for I will pardon them whom I reserve.”1750 Would you briefly know what is the meaning of these words? Consider, on the contrary, the import of the following expressions: “the Lord seweth up iniquity in a bag;” “iniquity is bound up;” “sin is hid;” to “write sins with a pen of iron, and engrave them with the point of a diamond.”1751 If they signify that God will execute vengeance, as they undoubtedly do, neither can it be doubted but that, by the contrary declaration, the Lord proclaims his remission of all vindictive punishment. Here I must conjure my readers not to listen to my expositions, but only to pay some deference to the word of God.